Administrative Issues Journal: Connecting Education, Practice, and Research (Spring

2015), Vol. 5, No. 1: 15-34, DOI: 10.5929/2015.5.1.3

VON BERGEN / DOI: 10.5929/2015.5.1.3 Page 15

Emotional Support Animals, Service Animals, and Pets on

Campus

C. W. Von Bergen, Ph.D.

Southwestern Oklahoma State University

Institutions that unlawfully reject such requests are finding themselves in court and charged with

disability discrimination. Schools are understandably confused about their obligation, if any, to

waive their no-pet rules under these circumstances. This article discusses pets on campus and

provides administrators guidance with respect to this increasingly contentious issue and to keep

their organizations “out of the legal dog house.”

Keywords: emotional support animals, mental disabilities, service animals, therapy animals, pets

on campus

We can barely hear them over the horizon; we can scarcely see them

coming down the road and in the air; we can faintly feel their vibrations

as they approach us; and we can catch a wisp of their scent in the breeze

challenging for postsecondary institutions in recent years (Rothstein & Rothstein, 2009). Although

“traditional” service animals, such as guide dogs to aid persons with physical disabilities, have

been accommodated on campuses, the use of animals to assist individuals with psychiatric issues is a

more recent trend (Huss, 2012). Within the past several years, colleges with no-pet policies have begun

receiving more and more requests from students who claim the need for a “companion” or “emotional

support animal” (ESA) as an accommodation for their mental, psychiatric, or emotional disorder

with respect to, particularly, emotional support animals.

MENTAL HEALTH CRISIS

Approximately 61.5 million Americans, one in four adults, experience a mental health impairment in any

year and one in 17, representing 13.6 million people, live with a serious mental illness, including

schizophrenia, major depression, or bipolar disorder, that costs America $193.2 billion in lost earnings

per year (The National Alliance on Mental Illness, 2013). The number of people claiming that they have

been discriminated against because of their mental disability has increased in recent years (Dessler,

2015), and now psychological disorders account for the second greatest number of disability claims,

after musculoskeletal assertions. Moreover, the return of veteran students with disabilities—such as

post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), traumatic brain injury, depression, substance abuse, substantial

health services when they arrive on campus (Watkins, Hunt, & Eisenberg, 2012), and administrators

have reported more difficult and severe long-term mental health issues and the emergence of less

prevalent conditions such as Tourette’s and Asperger’s syndrome (Blanco et al., 2008). Twenge et al.

(2010) found five times as many students in 2007 surpassed clinical cutoffs in one or more mental health

categories, compared with those who took the measure several decades earlier. Interestingly, 75% of

lifetime mental disorders have first onset by the typical college age range of 18-24 (Kessler et al., 2005).

There are numerous reasons for the increasing numbers of mentally ill students. It is becoming more

acceptable to disclose a mental illness; therefore, more people are seeking out help. With counseling

and other supportive services, students with a learning disability, mood disorder, or obsessive

compulsive disorder that would not have been able to attend college and be successful just a few years

depression or anxiety.

Some commentators have indicated that this intensification of students’ psychological and emotional

needs suggest a mental health crisis (e.g., Eiser, 2011). These data also suggest that this increased

attention to mental disabilities and psychiatric impairments in American society will likely advance the

agenda of individuals who advocate the acceptance of ESAs. Indeed, as a way of coping with this mental

health state of affairs, college students are increasingly asking administrators to allow them to bring

animals to campus and to exempt them from the institution’s rules and practices that traditionally have

upheld “no-pets” policies (or from very limiting regulations, such as the University of California at Santa

Cruz policy [n.d.] which indicates: “No-pets [except fish in a 10-gallon tank or smaller aquarium] are

allowed in the residential facilities”). Students are increasingly asserting that they have a mental or

These requests are emblematic of the recent greater emphasis on mental disorders in U.S. society,

which accelerated because of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), a comprehensive civil

rights law that prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability. Among other issues, the ADA provides

seeking the protection of the ADA to establish that they have a disability within the meaning of the

statute. The ADAAA noted that the definition of disability must be construed “… in favor of broad

coverage of individuals …” (42 U.S. Code). The focus must be on whether discrimination occurred and

not on whether a person meets the definition of disabled.

After the ADA and ADAAA passed, however, the statutes as applied to physical disabilities received the

most attention (Moss, Johnson, & Ullman, 1998), and significant progress in gaining access to public

facilities, including restaurants, theaters, stores, museums, offices and plants, web sites, and

government services, was made. Postsecondary institutions responded by building ramps, constructing

elevators, removing architectural barriers in existing facilities, setting offset hinges to widen doorways,

painting new lines to create accessible parking spaces, modifying furniture and equipment, and so forth,

clarity to this topic in order to ensure that higher education enacts effective and lawful policies and

The Palliative Effects of Animals

Although students seeking permission to keep animals on campus to mitigate their mental impairments

is relatively new, the ameliorative effects of animals are not. For centuries people have noted that

animals can have a positive influence on human functioning, and conventional wisdom has long

supported the use of animals in promoting human wellbeing (Nimer & Lundahl, 2007). Recent studies

have found that while many benefits of animal companionship apply to groups across the board, unique

benefits were found for those individuals with mental or psychiatric disorders (The Delta Society, n.d.).

Substantial research across the health sciences provides evidence of the human health benefits,

Yet some believe that requests to bring animals to school is being twisted and stretched to seemingly

absurd dimensions by students seeking to have their pets accompany them on campus for some often

one, they won’t be able to say no to the next one” (Field, 2006, p. 15)—resulting in college campuses

resembling zoos rather than learning communities.

CAMPUS OCCURRENCES

Several campus incidents provide background information on this issue. In 2005, freshman Sarah Sevick,

diagnosed with anxiety and depression, petitioned administrators at Our Lady of the Lake University in

San Antonio, Texas, to let her bring her ferret, Lilly, to her dorm room and her classes because Lilly

Similarly, Kyra Alejandro, a student at Palm Beach State College in Palm Beach, Florida, was diagnosed in

2011 with various mental disorders, and as soon as she received her diagnosis, she began training her

dog, a black Pomeranian named Ambrosius, as a “psychiatric service animal.” The dog was taught “to

Alejandro v. Palm Beach State College, 2011). The court held that Ms. Alejandro was an individual with a

swayed by the psychologist’s statement that her dog “makes a clinical difference for Ms. Alejandro, and

has proved to be a crucial accommodation, enabling her to study and learn without experiencing

debilitating anxiety” (Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, n.d.a, p. 10). The college was ordered to

pay Alejandro and her counsel $100,000.

enrolled at the University of Nebraska at Kearney in August 2010. She registered with its disability-

and schedules for intake; the date of the student’s last visit with the doctor and a schedule of regular

visits; a list of any other doctors providing treatment; a clinical summary indicating the substantial life

activities impaired by the disability, the extent to which these limitations would impact the academic or

present in two or more settings; and an explanation of how the student’s limitations affect the activities

that are required in an academic environment.

After an investigation by The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the DOJ filed suit

(United States v. University of Nebraska at Kearney, 2010), alleging that the University violated the Fair

Housing Act (FHA, 1968) by denying a student’s request to have her ESA live with her in a university

apartment. In finding for the plaintiff, the court noted that “particularly in the context of residential

by “refusing to make a reasonable accommodation to modify their no-pet policy.”

These accounts highlight the ongoing struggle that many colleges encounter when trying to understand

and comply with various laws that apply to student requests for exceptions to a school’s no-pets policy

as an accommodation for their mental disability. This effort is complicated by various animal definitions

and labels.

The use of animals in various service, assistive, therapeutic, pet, and emotional support roles has

contributed to an uncoordinated and confusing expansion of labels. Parenti, Foreman, Meade, and

Wirth (2013) summarize these numerous names to include “service animals,” “companion animals,”

“comfort animals,” “emotional support animals,” “visitation animals,” “therapy animals,”

“therapy/emotional support animals,” “assistive animals,” “assistance animals,” “psychiatric service

animals,” and “pets.” This inconsistent vocabulary leads to difficulties many universities encounter when

making decisions regarding animals on campus. To further complicate matters, definitions of animals

differ from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. While it is beyond the scope of this paper to discuss more local

differences, Wisch (2012)—from the Animal Legal & Historical Center at Michigan State University

Nevertheless, for our purposes, several definitions are significant: service animals, ESAs, and pets.

Table1 shows these definitions along with a brief statement indicating where animals are generally

allowed on campus. ESAs and service animals are not “pets,” but are considered to be more like assistive

Table 1

Key animal categories relevant to colleges and locations where they are generally allowed

interrupting inappropriate repetitive behavior with a persistent nudging task.

A service animal may be trained by a non-certified professional, a friend, a family member, or the

person with the disability. Service animals are working animals and must be harnessed, leashed, or

tethered, unless these devices interfere with the animal’s work or the individual’s disability prevents

using these devices. In that case, the person must maintain control of the animal through voice, signal,

or other effective controls. A service dog is not required to be registered or wear a special tag or vest

When it is not obvious what service an animal provides, staff may only ask only two questions: (1) Is the

dog a service animal required because of a disability? and (2) What work or task has the dog been

trained to perform? Any inquiry beyond these two questions opens up organizations to litigation.

Safety considerations for denying an accommodation must be based on actual risks, rather than on

ESAs

close to their handler. Such animals, by their very nature and mere presence, and without specific

training, may relieve and/or help reduce psychologically or emotionally induced pain in persons with

certain medical conditions (Pet Ownership for the Elderly and Persons with Disabilities, 2008). Because

they are not individually trained to perform work or tasks, ESAs are not service animals but may be

smell other people, whereas service dogs are trained not to do so (Witz, 2013). As such, ESAs are

virtually indistinguishable from the family pet. One more source of confusion for universities is that a

variety of animal types can be claimed as ESAs, including rabbits, hamsters, snakes, and potbellied pigs.

ESAs by their very nature, and without training, may relieve depression and anxiety, and help reduce

Pets

The term pet (from the root of the French word “petit”) has long been the affectionate term for animals

kept for pleasure and companionship (Grier, 2006). Brigham Young University (n.d.), often cited as

having a model policy for animals on campus service, defines a pet as an animal kept for ordinary use

and companionship. Pets are not considered service animals or ESAs, and most universities have not

usually permitted them on campus. Importantly, what identifies ESAs from pets is that the student

owner/handler has been diagnosed by a medical professional as having a verifiable (mental) disability

that is not transitory and minor. This is explained in greater detail below.

impairment” (e.g., ADA, Section 12102). Under the ADAAA, “major life activities” was expanded to

include a non-exhaustive list of “major bodily functions.” Specifically, the ADAAA indicates:

disorder,” and “authority figure stress reaction syndrome” (Rosenberg, 2013), and have not been

Furthermore, individuals who claim to be worried or uneasy over marital problems, financial hardships,

roommate difficulties, class duties, or harsh and unreasonable treatment from instructors are not

classified as disabled. Additionally, traits or behaviors are not, in themselves, mental impairments. For

example, stress, in itself, is not automatically a mental impairment; stress, however, may be shown to

lateness, and poor judgment are not, in themselves, mental impairments, although they may be linked

ADDRESSING STUDENT ANIMAL REQUEST ACCOMMODATIONS

ESA or service animal.

Even as a dog is said to be “man’s best friend” [sic], students realize at many U.S. colleges that their best

friend is often not welcome. However, it is not only students’ best friends that are banned, but other

friends as well, since many postsecondary institutions do not allow any animals on campus (except such

animals as guide dogs, laboratory or research animals, fish in small aquariums). It is hoped that this

paper will assist administrators address the topic of ESAs on campus.

The aim of most universities is to promote a welcoming and inclusive campus that ultimately supports

success for all stakeholders including persons with mental disabilities. The right of an individual with a